Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> commissioner wu. >> here. >> commissioner antonini. >> here. >> commissioner borden. >> commissioner sugaya. >> here. >> first is item one case at 1865 post street request for conditional use authorization is being proposed for continuance to february seven, 2013 at the request of the project sponsor requesting a further continuance than shown on the calendar. item two at 601 van ness avenue continual use continuance is requested. further under the regular calendar there is another request for item 15 at 2895 san bruno avenue request for continuance. that's all i have is there any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none. commissioner antonini. >> move to move items one and two to the date proposed and item 15 to january 17, 2013. >> second. >> >> on that motion to continue commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner wu. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> that passes seven to zero will will place you under the consent calendar. all items constitute the consent calendar considered routine by the pla
think there are some additional comment. commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i would like to have the commission give consideration to perhaps inserting the january thursday, but substituting another thursday somewhere in that long string of meetings that we have in between february and may and that could be the end of march for example or something like that just to give us a break in there. >> we always have the ability of scheduling more meetings and canceling them or postponing -- >> yeah, it's probably easier to cancel meetings than reschedule them. >> right. >> because we just send out a cancellation notice and that's it. >> but if it's on the schedule the staff is going to go ahead and start scheduling things for it so that's the problem. >> well, if we know well in advance, yes. >> commissioner wu. >> i could supportive of the desire to add in the 31st on january and then maybe take off the last of march. to respond to commissioner antonini i think it's important to take the planning commission appointment serious but also it limits who can be on the planning commission.
to commissioners, with comments and questions, commissioner sugaya? >> just on the privacy issue, i don't think people stand around on decks to look into bedroom windows. i'm sorry. i live in a condo, across the street from me, there are bedroom windows. you know, i don't think people in my condo building stand there and try to look in other people's windows. i suppose if you are having coffee or having a drink or something, you know, you might glance around and there is that kind of thing, but i don't think that most people on these kinds of decks. this is a family. it's like -- it's just not going to happen. i don't consider that to be an extraordinary circumstance. >> commissioner antonini? >> i would agree with commissioner sugaya. i know in "rear window," there this was a lot of that activity in that building being a hitchcock movie. this is different, because the people on the decks would have to turn, instead of looking at the garden and green space, actually look back to their east and to the east windows and again, we're in a city that people are always going to have windows. i do
to do? >> definitely dropping the panels down. >> commissioner sugaya. >> the project had a pre-application meeting, which is required. which included notification to the neighborhood associations for the neighborhood. >>> when did that take place? >> that could have taken place, i believe prior to the filing of the building permit application. >> so mr. nickitas, do you know what that date was? >> commissioner, that pre-dated my involvement with the project, but architect levitt sent out notices for the preapmeeting and we have the attendance from it. my understanding is that the pacific neighborhoods association received notice and choose not to attend the pre-app meeting >> thank you >> thank you. >> commissioner? >> i actually don't have a problem with this project. i don't like the way the solar panels are sitting and if we can work on that, that would be -- not too happy that we're not gaining any units, are we? but then we have to talk about making the building even taller. i don't know. >> commissioner hillis? >> i would agree. i mean, obviously you can't add a f
rodgers? >> commissioner sugaya? >> thank you. this isn't on this subject, but since it's about bicycles, maybe the question is more directed towards mta or the bicycle coalition, but has there been any thinking and i don't though this. i asked this question the other day and they said there was also legislation, but is there any discussion about legislating bicycle licenses for individuals buying bicycles? when i was a young kid riding a bicycle, i had it take my bike to the police department and get a license. it was put on there with a little metal plate and clamped on there. it wasn't screwed on or anything. i guess i could have pried it off, but i was a good little kid. so is there anything going on like that, especially since there is the statistics that we were just given and visiblely on the streets a lot more bicyclists? you know the paper carries storis about the bad parts about it, that that is i'm sure in the minority, but on the other hand i don't know is there any thinking going on about licensing bikes and having a mandatory training program or something? >> we get inq
stronger. >> commissioner sugaya. >> we don't have a requirement for car share, do we? >> yeah we do have a requirement for car share. if it's less than 50 years you don't need a space but over 50 i think it's one and over a hundred i think it's two, so there is a minimum amount. this would basically set a maximum amount. >> but they're not in the spaces required under the code? >> no. they do not count -- your required car share spaces don't count against your max parking allotment. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> just clarification. you have of course the principally permitted residential parking that varies from project to project and gain by cu and some places there are requirements for car share but there is a maximum on the car share as it now exists in most instances? >> the maximum is -- let's say you're required to have one space and you can have that and doesn't take away from the maximum amount but if you max out the parking it can't add car share spaces so this allows to you add in addition to that and not count against you on a voluntary basis though. >>
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)